The Supreme Court ruled in the case of a Kyivstar subscriber whose service cost was raised from UAH 75 to UAH 105 over four weeks without proper notification. The court ordered the operator to refund the debited funds, restore the previous tariff plan terms, and compensate the difference.
This was reported by Minfin citing Dmytro Hudyma, according to the portal PromPolitInform.
Supreme Court judge Dmytro Hudyma said the court settled the dispute between a subscriber and Kyivstar over a tariff plan change. The operator raised the service cost from UAH 75 to UAH 105 over four weeks, after which the client’s account was debited at the new rate.
The Supreme Court noted that an operator cannot consider its notification obligation fulfilled merely because information about new tariffs was published somewhere. The operator must notify the subscriber directly about changes to contract terms, tariffs, or tariff plans.
Information must be accessible, clear, and comprehensive
The notification must include not only changes to the scope of services but also the new price, its effective date, and other essential terms, including a reference to the official website. This rule applies regardless of whether the subscriber is identified or uses services anonymously.
A particularly important aspect is the burden of proof. The operator, which sets the terms of the adhesion contract and changes them, must prove that it properly informed the end user of the changes. Without such confirmation, the updated tariffs cannot be considered part of the adhesion contract.
The court ordered the operator to restore previous terms
The Supreme Court did not limit itself to stating the violation. It ordered the operator to refund funds debited from the personal account for daily use of services, restore the previous tariff plan terms, and return the difference between the amounts charged under the changed tariff and the cost of the previous tariff.
The ruling concerns case No. 674/284/23. In it, the court analysed, in particular, SMS messages, information on the operator’s website, and the procedure for presenting evidence in court. The decision also addressed claims for refunding debited funds and restoring the previous tariff plan terms.
Illustrative photo: Perohanych / CC BY-SA 4.0
Read also: The Supreme Anti-Corruption Court has seized the assets of Deputy Prime Minister Kuleba
